From: "Đoàn Trần Công Danh" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Sergey Organov <email@example.com>
Cc: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Alex Henrie" <email@example.com>,
"Git mailing list" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Rebase options via git pull
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 19:42:03 +0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YKJkmws18M6oJZXy@danh.dev> (raw)
On 2021-05-17 15:33:18+0300, Sergey Organov <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> Probably add generic cmd.<cmd>.opts config support, so that I can say:
> >> git -c cmd.rebase.opts="--no-fork-point --empty=keep" pull --rebase
> >> Thoughts?
> > It's been discussed before (but I did not dig up the discussions,
> > sorry). It's been considered a bad idea, because our commands are a
> > mixture of plumbing/porcelain commands and switches, so we want to be
> > able to reliably invoke say ls-tree with some switches internally,
> > without config tripping us up.
> > Of course we could make this sort of thing work by selectively ignoring
> > the config, but such a thing would be equal in complexity to the effort
> > of assering that it's safe to introduce new rebase.* config in the
> > codebase for every switch it has now, but with a less friendly interface
> > both for git itself and users.
> I don't see much complexity here. We'd then just need to effectively
> invoke ls-tree internally like this:
> git -c 'cmd.ls-tree.opts=' ls-tree
> Not a big deal.
It's a big deal.
Scripts was written with plumbing command and expect stable output.
If such change can be accepted, a lot of scripts will begin to fail.
> > I.e. instead of rebase.noForkPoint=<bool> we'd need to to getopt parsing
> > on some cmd.rebase.opts string.
> As this is meant to be generic, then yes, every command will first parse
> corresponding config option, then command-line options, rebase not being
> any different.
> > I don't see why in this case what I suggested elsewhere in the thread
> > wouldn't be viable, i.e. you specify --rebase or --merge to "pull", and
> > that affects how we interpret the rest of the options. I haven't tried
> > it though, so there may be hidden gotchas there I haven't thought of.
I didn't follow that sub-thread. However, I think we can extend
git-pull with a dedicated option prefix for options that would be
passed down to git-merge or git-rebase.
Sililar to -W of CCLD (as in gcc -W,--as-needed)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-17 12:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-13 13:19 Rebase options via git pull Sergey Organov
2021-05-13 20:18 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-14 9:14 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-05-15 7:39 ` Sergey Organov
2021-05-14 0:49 ` Alex Henrie
2021-05-14 0:58 ` Đoàn Trần Công Danh
2021-05-14 1:01 ` Alex Henrie
2021-05-14 6:37 ` Sergey Organov
2021-05-17 10:11 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-05-17 12:33 ` Sergey Organov
2021-05-17 12:42 ` Đoàn Trần Công Danh [this message]
2021-05-17 12:59 ` Sergey Organov
2021-05-17 14:48 ` Đoàn Trần Công Danh
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).